ArticleScientific reports2025
Improving ACS prediction in T2DM patients by addressing false records in electronic medical records using propensity score.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our study aims to improve the prediction performance of machine learning (ML) models by addressing false records (i.e., false positive, false negative, or missingness) in binary categorical variables in electronic medical records (EMRs) using propensity score (PS). This study used the EMRs of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with basal insulin at a tertiary university hospital in South Korea. We expanded the definition of PS into the probability of having a record for a binary variable given covariates. We calculated PS for the binary categorical variables in their EMRs and developed PS datasets. By utilizing various ML algorithms, we developed and validated ACS prediction models on 80% and 20% of the dataset, respectively. We evaluated model performance using accuracy, recall, precision, F1 score, and AUROC. Additionally, the Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) method was used to identify important clinical predictors of ACS. The study included 9,338 patients (with an average age of 60.2 years and 56.6% of whom were male) over 10,184 treatment periods. The most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (31.5%) and dyslipidemia (28.9%). Notably, 6.9% experienced ACS during their insulin treatment. The ML models trained on PS datasets generally outperformed the models trained on raw datasets. The results of SHAP analysis showed that older age, higher baseline weight, higher baseline glucose, history of antithrombotic therapy, history of chest pain, and indicators of T2DM progression (e.g., senile cataract) were important ACS risk factors. We have developed an ACS prediction model with an improved performance and higher reliance on clinical predictors that are in alignment with current medical understanding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.